A Shifting Relationship

As someone halfway through the ordination process, preparing to serve as a priest within the Church of England, the news surrounding the Prime Minister, the King, and the future of the establishment feels heavier than usual. It’s not just politics. It’s the ground beneath the institution I’m joining.

The Telegraph recently published about Andy Burnham's plans to remove the historic, legal restrictions preventing Catholic and Jewish prime ministers from advising the Crown on Church appointments.

Some reports, like Humanists UK, welcomed it, arguing that this change highlights a deeper problem: the entire Church and State relationship is antiquated. Their list was long. It included bishops in the Lords, compulsory worship in schools, the monarch’s Protestant requirement, and the Prime Minister’s role in appointments. Their conclusion was clear. The Government should finish the job and move toward disestablishment.

The monarchy is also changing its language. King Charles has started using the phrase “Protector of the space for faith within the multi faith nation” in his official accounts. It’s not the “Defender of the Faith” coronation oath. It’s a reframing of the monarch’s religious role. I wrote about this back in March where William’s quiet affirmation of faith encouraged me. Charles’ reframing unsettled me. Hearing it again now, in a moment when the Prime Minister is adjusting the Church’s constitutional position, makes me feel uncomfortable.

Politics has changed too. For the first time in decades, we seem to be in a four party race. Labour, Conservatives, Reform, and the Greens. The Green Party’s long standing policy of disestablishing the Church of England suddenly matters because they’re no longer fringe. Their wider constitutional vision has included removing bishops from the House of Lords, ending automatic religious privilege in public life, and creating a fully secular state where no denomination holds formal constitutional authority. They don’t want to abolish Christianity or the Church but they do want to end establishment. Critics argue that this risks eroding centuries of tradition and weakening the symbolic role of Christianity in national identity. Supporters say it’s necessary for a modern, multi faith democracy. The conversation is happening and is no longer theoretical.

All of this lands differently for me. I’m following my calling, but I’m also entering an institution that’s being pulled, stretched, and questioned from every direction, even when they're making positive moves forward elsewhere. It’s worrying. The structures around it are shifting.

My college assignment on Church adaptions over the years makes sense at the moment. The assignment evaluates how the Church of England has tried to attract and retain worshippers by adapting its teachings and practices to modern society, using the 1928 Prayer Book reforms and the Fresh Expressions movement as two major examples, and assesses how successful those adaptations have been.

When the 1928 Prayer Book controversy happened Parliament repeatedly interfered with Church liturgy, identity, and discipline. The Church Assembly, bishops, and the Lords approved the book. The Commons rejected it twice. MPs feared Catholic influence. Bishops despaired and the Archbishop of Canterbury was described as inconsolable. Parliament’s Protestant convictions overrode ecclesial authority.

The result was fragmentation. Evangelicals, Anglo Catholics, and liberals reacted differently. Political pressure exposed already present tensions. Something interesting happened though. Even though Parliament rejected the book, the Church quietly adopted much of it anyway. Bishops authorised practices. Parishes absorbed new liturgies. Reform happened through lived worship rather than legislation. My assignment concluded that political interference often destabilises the Church, but the Church adapts through practice rather than parliamentary permission.

This feels relevant now.

We’re watching political characters question or reshape the Church’s constitutional role, the King and Head of the Church adjust the language of his religious identity, and secular and religious voices debate establishment from every angle. It’s messy. Anti monarchists dislike Charles’ involvement. Church of England loyalists dislike his reframing. Secularists dislike the Prime Minister’s involvement. Traditionalists dislike removing historic restrictions. Christians are split. Humanists and Greens want disestablishment. Reform wants something different again.

Clergy continue their work in the middle of all this. The Archbishop continues her role. The Church continues its mission. Worship continues. Faith continues. Just as they did following the 1928 controversy. People of faith carrying out their mission.

I don’t believe the Prime Minister being Catholic should advise on Church appointments. However much people say they’ll hold a position of integrity and fairness personal religious preference will always influence decisions. The Archbishop, as have hundred before her, already fulfils the role of supporting the monarch. That seems appropriate. It always has.

I know the culture towards Church and faith has changed over the last century. We’re living in a multi faith and multicultural country. I’m happy to embrace everyone who’s here, but Christianity has shaped this country for a millennium. The Church of England has shaped it for nearly five hundred years.

We’ve been here before. Political pressure, constitutional change, and public debate. The Church adapted then and it’ll adapt now but it’s still a worrying moment, especially for those of us serving and worshipping in it.

I’m watching closely and praying. I’m hoping the Church and State relationship holds long enough for the Church to keep doing what it’s always done and quietly outlast every political storm.